Every year there is at least one big case of plagiarism that everyone talks about. This time it arrived fast. Radiohead sued Lana del Rey, arguing that the song "Get Free" (2017) by this artist replicates the iconic "Creep" (1992).
Radiohead sued * Lana del Rey for her song "Get Free" (2017) alleging that plagiarized the melody of "Creep" (1992).
(* Lana del Rey says they sued her, Warner / Chapell released a statement denying this, they can compare the two songs here)
These discussions of similarity always have conflicting positions.
The plaintiff sees everything the same,
those who defend themselves claim originality.
The discourse is always the same and equally the two sides can be right.
It's simple: if you do your own work, you develop it with your own creativity and come up with a solution that reflects it is an original work. With that, it should be enough. With that we could defend ourselves.
Different thing is to take someone else's work and publish it as such; or build on this work (build little) and take it all as your own.
What I want to highlight here is that in these cases each of the parties has an "accurate" perspective. Radiohead can see that "Get Free" is similar to "Creep" and Lana del Rey says he wrote it without being inspired by that song.
What do we have left then?
To argue that it was a subject of "unconscious inspiration" like George Harrisón round. The Chiffons?